Liberals/Democrats: Do you agree with The Obama??

[M14 Shooter]

The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.

As Commander-in-Chief, the President does have a duty to protect and defend the United States. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent

-The Obama
Obama on presidential war-making powers - Glenn Greenwald - Salon.com

Do you agree? If so, and in context, what do you think of our military action in Libya?
Do you disagree? If so, and in context, what do you think of our military action in Iraq?

(You may check as many options that apply)

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Even assuming the War Powers act is Constitutional, the President has 90 days to do as he pleases.

The problem for Liberals and the Democrats is the hypocrisy of the whining and gnashing of teeth and the threats against Bush and republicans after THEY followed the act and GOT congressional approval for everything they did.

 

[Mad Scientist]

Dis gun be gud!

 

[M14 Shooter]

Even assuming the War Powers act is Constitutional, the President has 90 days to do as he pleases.

According to The Obama's statement, the question is not what the law says, but what the Constitution says. HE says that the Constitution does not grant the CinC this unilateral power, and yet He exercised that power, unilaterally.

So, if The Obama actually believes what he said, the WPA is irrelevant.

The problem for Liberals and the Democrats is the hypocrisy of the whining and gnashing of teeth and the threats against Bush and republicans after THEY followed the act and GOT congressional approval for everything they did.

Which is why this is so much fun - they really have no idea of how to handle this.
Odd that it almost never strikes them to simply be honest and call Him out on this.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

I don't know what my opinion is on Libya yet.

I was against the war in Iraq, but never claimed it violated American law. Neither does Libya, unless someone actually brings a challenge of the War Powers Resolution to the Supreme Court, where it would probably be declared unconstitutional. As of right now, no laws are being broken.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I don't know what my opinion is on Libya yet.

I was against the war in Iraq, but never claimed it violated American law. Neither does Libya, unless someone actually brings a challenge of the War Powers Resolution to the Supreme Court, where it would probably be declared unconstitutional. As of right now, no laws are being broken.

So, you disagree with The Obama, and believe that The President -DOES- have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.
Correct?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

I don't know what my opinion is on Libya yet.

I was against the war in Iraq, but never claimed it violated American law. Neither does Libya, unless someone actually brings a challenge of the War Powers Resolution to the Supreme Court, where it would probably be declared unconstitutional. As of right now, no laws are being broken.

So, you disagree with The Obama, and believe that The President -DOES- have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.
Correct?

According to the War Powers Resolution, he's got 60 days to get Congress to approve, and 30 days more to pull out if they don't.

That's the law as of now. So yes, you are correct.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Hello darkness, my old friend...